(Don't get me wrong: I think that it is a shit defence that should not be accepted in any way, but why the inconsistency?)

The second question that I like to ask is this: the going rate for a CiF article is £75—was this paid to Stratford? Because—and feel free to say I'm wrong here—I was under the impression that criminals were not allowed to profit from their crimes.

Given that Stratford has been convicted, and the article has only been written because she committed a crime, were she to accept payment, Stratford is quite obviously profiting from crime—as is Comment Is Free.

I think we should be told.

And, if Stratford has been paid, then the money should be confiscated; and then both she and CiF should be prosecuted for breaking the law.

The vagaries of trial by jury. One jury aquits (Kingsnorth) the other finds guilty (Drax) for the same offence, with the same defence.

The jury I was on for an attempted murder case was undecided at first and took a lot of effort on my part to get it to a conclusion. There is a real random element at play in jury selection - enough to explain similar cases having different outcomes.

What is the answer? Maybe juries are just the least worst system and we have to live with criminals getting away with it as the price we pay not to have the state incarcerate whoever it wants, whenever it wants.

From what I read on an eco-loon site the first case was won because they were allowed to "justify" the damage they caused as a response to a emergency that was putting others lives at risk. (gerbil worming killing people)

In the successful prosecution of this tie dye pubed swampy the judge rulled that arguement inadmissable.

The eco loons are allready claiming global warming is killing about 300 per day.

This defence is nothing new. There have been many cases over the years of various pricks, scumbags and unwashed peaceniks breaking into RAF bases and damaging planes only to be found not guilty. There was one case that got quite a lot of attention at the time, when a bunch of old biddies smashed up some BAE Hawkers that were being sold to the Indonesians; it was an open-and-shut case until a judge decided to set that pesky old law aside and set them free on the grounds that their terrorism was justified by the fact that the Indonesians were a jolly unpleasant bunch of wogs who might use these planes (training craft, not actual combat planes) for ungentlemanly and downright non-genteel purposes.

As I understand it, they were charged under a different act - relating specifically to the interference with a railway vehicle. This act doesn't have the same wriggle room that applied in the Kingsnorth trial.

No Marksany in this case what happened, at least if the Guardian report is in any way truthful (granted an open question) is that the judge simply disallowed any discussion of catastrophic warming as irrelevent. In the Kingsnorth case the judge allowed the great & genocidal to parade through court telling the jury that it was their duty to aquit. (Personally I think it is an afront to everything Conservatism is supposed to represent that Zac Goldsmith is still their candidate after testifying that the rule of law should be broken.

One point she makes - that the prosecution couldn't dispute catastrophic warming - is important. Of course many people have disputed it & every time it has gone to public debate the sceptics have come out ahead. The reason the prosecution cannot debate it is that it is an "official truth" useful to those in power. The entire Green movement is just the spume on the wave of totalitarianism that is being imposed on us. It would be par for the course if this vandalism were being funded, through fakecharities, by our government.

No fakecharity named as being involved but the news report says the 22 involved were "a senior university lecturer, teachers and film-makers" - since we are talking in the plural & film making is not that common a job my guess is that they are making films either for the education mafia or as propagandists for government departmemts rather than something more honourable like porn videos.

If so all these vandals are government parasites who would lose their cushy jobs if found to have a BNP membership card but clearly expect that vandalism in the eco-fascist cause will fit nicely on the CV.

@ neil craig: necessity is a legal defence to criminal damage, which is what the Kingsnorth lot were charged with. Hence, a defendant to a criminal damage charge has every right to use whatever resources they have available to convince a jury that their act was necessary. That's not subverting the rule of law, it *is* the rule of law.

(and Goldsmith *didn't* advocate breaking the law, precisely because you are not guilty of criminal damage and hence *haven't* broken the law if your act is deemed by a jury as necessary.)

Necessity isn't a defence to obstructing the railway, which is what the Drax lot were charged with. Hence, a defendant to that charge doesn't have the right to try and convince the jury that their act was necessary, because even if they succeeded they'd still be guilty in law.

Nothing to do with the relative hippyness or levels of discipline of the two judges - just the correct application of the law in both cases.

Everyone who's ignoring you is in fact doing you a favour, they probably remember the last time you made a prize pratt of yourself insisting they really just wanted people locked up without benefit of trial.

Because—and feel free to say I'm wrong here—I was under the impression that criminals were not allowed to profit from their crimes.Yes,you are wrong- shareholders of the various rail franchises knowingly purchased stolen property-and they are still receiving their annual dividends in this supposed 'collectivist tyranny'

Oooh, actually I remember - it was the time, when the guilt of the people responsible for causing Baby P's death hadn't yet been established, that some fucktard here suggested they should all be horribly punished (rather than 'horribly punished if guilty', or just fucking waiting a couple of weeks to see if they were convicted). I was right then, too.

Don't be too quick to judge birds like her. My recent experience of eco-wimmin has been improved over the last few weeks by the hippy wench I spent all night ridiculing and arguing with in the pub who then dragged me back to her house and fucked my brains out. It's all an act, and what they really need is some cock to shut them the fuck up.Seriously, it's a hard coded biological urge. Their fluffy brains might tell them that they are attracted to geography teachers who love dolphins, wear sandals and are in touch with their inner child, but their genes are asking for a real man with scars, muscles and tattoos.

Now where would you like it Beth ? I'd guess that would be up the arse according to my recent experience. It's not my thing particularly, but your pleasure is my pleasure....

It's indeed such a waste that she's quite attractive, in what you'd term I guess a "Cottage in Wales containing log fire" sort of way.

But seriously, these eco-droids are dangerous - far, far worse potentially for Mankind that those silly young towel-heads who wave Khalashnikhovs (only when on TV though!) and waste all their rounds in the air (ditto.) Those can be fixed with $20,000 each, plus a sexy young "palestinian" chick (although I bet they're not fussy) and an old Golf GTI - so $100 million or so, plus the willing girls (there'll be lots in Barnsley and Bootle and Kirkby and Huyton and Peckham and Camberwell in the towerblocks), plus this govt's car-scrappage scheme, ought to fix the "War on Terror" permanently.

But people like Beth Stratford can't be fixed: They don't need the dollars, they don't like cars, and many of the females are FemiNazis. They believe fervently and with relentless ferocity - I use the word advisedly - in their cause. They are as religiously-fanatical in their prosecution of their objectives as early Christians in 2nd/3rd-century Rome, or as Mohammed's (PBOH)later followers were in erazing ancient Christian kingdoms in pan-Arabia, or Hitler or Lenin or Che[your T-shirt is not cool] or the pig Mao.

Actually I found John P's reply responsive - he did explain how the authorities had got round the Kingsnorth defence by charging them with obstruction rather than damage (which they also did).

I still regard the Kingsnorth defence of "necessity" as obviously fraudulent - I think eco-fascism is far more destructive than global warming (actually infinitely so) & Hitler presumably sincerely believed the same of Jewish shopkeepers. The refusal of the prosecution to criticise the eco-scare on political grounds establishes a nasty precedent which would, if either Hitler or I were in power to resort to ignore the written law.

Marc I did not find your reply responsive. If there is a particular point you don't understand say what it is & I will try to explain to you in short words.

"The boys in green are coming as the Environment Agency sets up a squad to police companies generating excessive CO2 emissions.

The agency is creating a unit of about 50 auditors and inspectors, complete with warrant cards and the power to search company premises to enforce the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), which comes into effect next year.

Decked out in green jackets, the enforcers will be able to demand access to company property, view power meters, call up electricity and gas bills and examine carbon-trading records for an estimated 6,000 British businesses. Ed Mitchell, head of business performance and regulation at the Environment Agency, said the squad would help to bring emissions under control. “Climate change and CO2 are the world’s biggest issues right now. The Carbon Reduction Commitment is one of the ways in which Britain is responding.”..."

Beth Stratford will be first in line for one of the new brown shirt/ green jacket uniforms...

er, anonymous at 3.38, if their (the eco-birds) "genes are asking for a real man" & they want it "up the arse as (your) recent experience leads (you) to guess", then surely their genes are somewhat self defeating - as is your point, maybe?

I don't usually read the Grauniad, so I was pleasantly surprised to read most of the comments below her article slagging her down. One word which reoccurs in the posts to describe her - and seems fitting - is narcissisistic.

You people don't realise this do you, global warming is very serious. We can prove that there are no turtles and dolphins and fluffy ickle wabbits at the North Pole. Now say that global warming isn't real!

Charles, you should read The Guardian, well the cif comments anyway. The most hostile responses to the likes of Polly Toynbee are from former Labour supporters like me.

One personal eco-grumble. I am trying to rent my house out and have discovered that I now need by law an 'Energy Performance Certificate'. A spotty 20 year old claiming to be a surveyor appeared at my door. He measured a couple of rooms, had a cursory look in the loft and left precisely 8 minutes later with me 60 quid poorer.